Saturday, November 10, 2012

New leaders

This
week, two highly visible positions were filled. The first, the presidency of
the United States of America, saw Barack Obama reelected for a second term. He won
the necessary majority in the Electoral College (each state has a number of
votes equal to its number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus
two, for its two senators). More symbolically, he won a plurality of the
popular vote. After a fierce, contentious, and lengthy campaign, voters decided
to stay the course with Obama rather than to replace him with Republican Mitt
Romney. Similarly, the Democratic majority in the Senate and the Republican
majority in the House both increased. Gridlock may continue.

In
the United Kingdom, the Queen announced that she was appointing the Rt. Rev.
Justin Welby, currently Bishop of Durham, as the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
His selection process began with a specially appointed Crown Nomination
Commission that sent the U.K.’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, a short list of
two names from which he chose Welby. Bishop Welby’s selection surprised many
observers because of his brief eleven months of experience as a bishop. He also
was ordained later in life, having first had an eleven-year, successful career
in international business.

The
two processes are starkly different. The U.S. election cost billions and involved
tens of millions of people. The Archbishop of Canterbury selection involved
dozens of people at a trivial cost. Ironically, religious rhetoric and issues
pervaded much of the U.S. election; odds set by bookmakers on the identity of
the Most Rev. Rowan Williams’ successor as Archbishop of Canterbury received more
publicity than did the serious discussion of religious issues.

Political
analysts of all stripes attribute Obama’s victory to his ground game rather
than the air war, i.e., to traditional politicking rather than to media messages.
As in Obama’s 2008 win, his campaigns understood that we live in a postmodern
era in which the world is increasingly flat. Through contacting individuals directly,
telephonically, and via the internet, Obama garnered sufficient support to
achieve victory. Perhaps the biggest loser in the election was Karl Rove whose
PACs spent in excess of $100 million for measurably few results, a doubly
encouraging outcome. Not only do I find Rove’s politics divisive and un-Christian,
but also dethroning the centrality of media advertising may indicate a small
step away from the de facto purchase of election victories by the candidate who
spends the most on advertising.

Conversely,
Bishop Welby’s nomination represents an antiquated hierarchical ecclesiology rooted
in a long gone concept of Christendom rather than in postmodern realities that
include the internet, increasing rejection of authoritarianism, and growing
individualism. The push for an Anglican covenant to bind the provinces of the Anglican
Communion more tightly together has floundered, in part, because its
authoritarianism is antithetical to postmodernism. The Anglican ethos of communion
among those who pray together but do not necessarily believe together has never
been timelier.

Bishop
Welby has declared his support for women bishops in the Church of England. He
has stated his support for the Church of England’s opposition to same sex
marriage. Once in office as Archbishop of Canterbury, I expect that he may view
the world differently. If anything, his support for women clergy may
strengthen. How his attitude toward same sex marriage may change is much harder
to predict.

Bishop
Welby believes that reconciliation should shape his ministry, a good priority if
at times impossible. The GAFCON bishops are clear: the Anglican Communion must
take a firm stance against same sex marriage, ordaining the openly gay, and
other positions they regard as departures of historical orthodoxy before they
will consider remaining in the Communion. In the meantime, The Episcopal Church,
the Anglican Church in Canada, significant parts of the Church of England, and
some other provinces continue to move forward toward fully including all of God's
people in the life and ministry of the Church regardless of gender or gender
orientation. Reconciliation between a stolidly entrenched party and a party
that is continuing to move further away appears very improbable. Such reconciliation
would also be out of step with the gospel and the tenor of postmodernism. Obama
has a better chance of breaking gridlock in Washington than Welby has of
breaking the impasse that some elements of the Anglican Communion currently
perceive.

The
previous week, a blindfolded ten-year-old boy in Cairo’s St. Mark’s Coptic
Cathedral chose one of three, wax-sealed, crystal balls. Each ball contained
the name of a Coptic bishop; the one the boy chose became the next Coptic pope,
Tawadros II. This process, based on the biblical precedent of choosing Judas’
successor by choosing lots between two qualified candidates, emphasizes the
uncertainty of human affairs. The future is unpredictable. Time may prove an
apparently obvious choice a mistake.

I
wanted President Obama reelected. No candidate who ran, or who might have run,
seemed preferable. Bishop Welby was not my preferred choice to be the next
Archbishop of Canterbury. Both will have my constant prayers and full support –
whenever their agenda aligns with what I think is right and whenever possible. And
I hope that God moves in surprising and unexpected ways through the leadership
of both to make the world a better, more peaceful place. This is the loyalty
that we owe our leaders.